>There are about two possibilities. No, three.
> 1)They're all wrong. (My position, FWIW)
> 2)One is right, the rest are wrong.
> 3)Some or all are *partly* right, some or all are wrong.
You missed at least one.
4) All are true, or have elements of truth. There is no wrong. (My
position, FWIW).
"Wrong" doesn't enter into it, because "wrong" has to be proven.
Religion and philosphy do not belong in the in the realm of proof and
disproof.
Some elements of myth and belief systems do seem to contradict. But if you look way closely, you'll find many of the same ideas present, and only the labels and small details change. Different ideals receive varying emphasis in different cultures, but few come up with POV's that are truely bizzare or unrecognizeable to others.
In Glorantha, frex - there was a ruler/stable state, and a rebel/new
order killed it. The world went into turmoil, from which is arose
again.
Gloranthan cultures label the ruler and the rebel what they like, and
they can claim that one or the other was more Just or more powerful.
But all are valid and none are "wrong". Especially in Glorantha, where
belief can influence the world and the gods to some extent.
Part of the fun of the new material is looking for clues that link it to the old RQ 2 myths. Also, consider that the RQ2 myths missed a lot. How much mention did Lodril get in RQ 2? Or Pamalt? Or Yelm? They are culture gods for millions of people. Why shouldn't their mythologies be as rich, varied, and successful as Orlanth's?
>Newton's physics, although brilliant were WRONG, and Isaac
himself would not deny it (I think) if resurrected. Sorry.
Precisely. And Newton's physics = the old RQ2 Objective POV, in my previous analogy.
I better quit before I start to ramble...
Pam
Powered by hypermail